Procedural complications of endovascular treatment in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage treated at a single centre
We present a single-centre experience of procedural complications suffered by patients undergoing endovascular treatment for a ruptured saccular intracranial aneurysm at Tampere University Hospital, Finland, between 2000 and 2014.
From 2000 to 2014, we treated 1,253 patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, 491 of whom received endovascular treatment. Clinical data were collected retrospectively from the hospital’s aneurysm database. A procedural complication was defined as having occurred whenever there was a documented new event in the patient’s medical records or a note of a technical complication written by an interventionist after endovascular treatment. Procedural complications could be with or without clinical symptoms.
Nearly 40% (491/1253) of the patients were treated with the endovascular method. Procedural complications occurred in 11.4% (56/491) of cases. The morbidity rate was 4.5% (22/491) and the mortality rate was 0.2% (1/491). Of the 56 complications, ischaemic complications occurred in 52% (29/56), haemorrhagic complications occurred in 27% (15/56) and technical complications occurred in 21% (12/56) of cases. In 61% (34/56) of the cases, the procedural complication did not cause any clinical symptoms.
The total risk for procedural complications leading to postoperative disability or death at our institute was 4.7%. The complication frequency is in accordance with previous reports. Endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms is a safe treatment method when patient selection is carefully performed.
KeywordsSubarachnoid haemorrhage Intracranial aneurysm Endovascular treatment Procedural complications Treatment Aneurysm
We would like to thank Anne Simi, the study nurse, for her support in collecting the data. We would also like to thank Data Scientist Jarkko Penttinen for mastering the database.
No funding was received for this research.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
No formal authorisation is needed from an ethics committee for this type of study.
This type of study does not require formal consent.
- 2.Brinjikji W, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ, Siddiqui AH, Boccardi E, Cekirge S, Fiorella D, Hanel R, Jabbour P, Levy E, Lopes D, Lylyk P, Szikora I, Kallmes DF (2016) Risk factors for ischemic complications following pipeline embolization device treatment of intracranial aneurysms: results from the IntrePED study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:1673–1678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Clajus C, Strasilla C, Fiebig T, Sychra V, Fiorella D, Klisch J (2016) Initial and mid-term results from 108 consecutive patients with cerebral aneurysms treated with the WEB device. J Neurointerv Surg. https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012276
- 6.Health Quality Ontario (2006) Coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 6:1–114Google Scholar
- 11.Molyneux A, Kerr R, International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) Collaborative Group, Stratton I, Sandercock P, Clarke M, Shrimpton J, Holman R (2002) International subarachnoid aneurysm trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomized trial. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 11:304–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar